ArticleBMC oral health2026
Artifacts of orthodontic materials on cone beam computed tomography images.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the artifact expression of various materials used in orthodontic treatment on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. It was hypothesized that three-dimensional (3D) printing resins and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), owing to their relatively low density and low effective atomic number, would generate fewer artifacts than conventional materials.
methodsTen orthodontic materials and an empty phantom control (Temporary CB, Permanent Crown, Biomed Clear, Glass Ionomer Cement, Composite, Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement, PEEK, Titanium Grade 2, Stainless Steel, and Monolithic Zirconia) were placed in a phantom model and scanned using the Planmeca ProMax 3D system. Each material was scanned three times, and grayscale standard deviation was measured in eight peripheral regions of interest (ROIs) per scan. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn-Bonferroni pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05), supplemented by scan-level and mixed-effects sensitivity analyses to account for the non-independence of ROIs within the same scan.
resultsA statistically significant difference in artifact expression was observed among the materials (P < 0.001). The lowest artifact expression was found in Biomed Clear (BC) and PEEK, whereas the highest artifact expression was observed in stainless steel (SS). Both PEEK and BC produced significantly fewer artifacts than many conventional materials. The scan-level and mixed-effects sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primary findings.
conclusionsBC and PEEK materials produced significantly lower artifact expression than conventional metallic and ceramic materials in CBCT imaging, potentially contributing to improved image quality. However, the present study evaluated grayscale standard deviation only; further studies assessing diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity/specificity) are required to determine whether the observed reduction in artifact expression translates into improved clinical diagnostic accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.